By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 30,2013
Morton v. Ivey, McClellan, Gatton & Talcott, LLP Even though the parties never signed their partnership agreement, there was a meeting of the minds as to its arbitration provision.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 11,2013
Alex Lee, Inc. v. Performance Food Group, Inc. The parties’ stock-purchase contract says that, if they cannot agree on a final purchase price for the company being sold, an independent auditor will determine the price. The respondent-buyer contends that the parties agree on the adjusted sale price, but that it seeks a separate set-off based on the petitioner-seller’s alleged overestimate of the company’s indebtedness. Since the stock-purchase contract does not direct how such a dual-natured claim must be asserted, the presumption is for arbitrability
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 8,2013
King v. Bryant An “Agreement to Arbitrate Dispute Resolution” will not fail for indefiniteness when portions of the agreement leave future decisions, such as selection of panel of arbitrators or procedural measures, to the arbitrator under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 16,2013
Crossman v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. Without a post-dispute agreement to arbitrate, the American Arbitration Association will not administer the parties’ healthcare dispute.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 27,2012
Hamilton v. Mortgage Information Services, Inc. The plaintiff-borrower, who didn’t negotiate or sign the title insurance contract, is not bound by its arbitration clause when she sues for statutory violations.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 5,2012
Rota-McLarty v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. A district court erred in applying Maryland law, instead of the Federal Arbitration Act, to deny a financing company’s motion to compel arbitration of a car buyer’s lawsuit; the 4th Circuit says the financing company did not waive arbitration by delaying about six months before filing its motion to compel and using “litigation machinery” to remove the case to federal court, file an answer and take the car buyer’s deposition.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 4,2012
Cornelius v. Lipscomb The trial court’s order has no findings and no explanation for the basis of the court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. We must reverse and remand for findings of fact regarding whether the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate and, if so, whether the parties’ dispute falls within the scope of that agreement.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: November 19,2012
Elliott v. KB Home North Carolina, Inc. The defendant-contractor did not file its motion to compel arbitration until more than three years after this action was filed and after plaintiffs had expended substantial time and effort and incurred approximately $100,000 in fees and other expenses litigating their claims. Defendant has acted inconsistently with its arbitration rights, and allowing defendant to enforce such rights now would prejudice plaintiffs.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: November 1,2012
E. Rick Miller Construction Co. v. Mugridge The arbitrator found that the defendant-owners relied on the plaintiff-contractor’s representations as to the costs of certain recommended upgrades to their “financial detriment”; however, the arbitrator also found that the owners didn’t typically ask the contractor questions about the cost of the upgrades. The arbitrator’s holding that the owners’ inattention “nullifie[d] any claim of deception” was not in manifest disregard of the law.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 25,2012
TP, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. Although the defendant-bank participated in related state-court litigation, such participation did not prejudice the plaintiff-debtor; therefore, the bank did not waive its right to arbitration.
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
Bartlett v. Wayne County Board of Education Plaintiffs contend that the majority of eyewitnesses in this case testified that the responding officer’s diagram depicting the accident scene was accurate, that the diagram demonstrates plaintiffs’ “van had to have been almost directly in front of the bus at the time [the bus driver] started her turn,” and that this evidence conclusively established that the bus driver failed to yield the right-of-way to plaintiffs’ van.
Fidelity Bank v. North Carolina Department of Revenue Even though the N.C. Revenue Act uses the Internal Revenue Code to determine state net income, and even though the Code treats “market discount income” on U.S. Treasury bonds as interest for purposes of the Code, under the N.C. Revenue Act market discount income on U.S. Treasury bonds is treated as income rather than interest.
Apex Tool Group, LLC v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Neither plaintiff nor the individual defendants are Texas residents; nevertheless, each of the individual defendants’ employment agreements includes an unambiguous and mandatory forum selection clause, which says any lawsuit involving the agreement must be brought in Harris County, Texas. The employment agreements were entered into by plaintiff’s predecessor and the individual defendants, who apparently did not live in Texas when they entered into the contracts and thus apparently anticipated interstate travel in the event of a trial.
